Who votes themselves government goodies?

[Dittohead not!]

According to this, corporate welfare is ten times that for working families. What do you think?

The combined cost of these 10 corporate welfare programs is $1.539 trillion per year. The three main programs needy families depend upon — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ($17.3 billion), food stamps ($74 billion), and the Earned Income Tax Credit ($67.2 billion) — cost just $158.5 billion in total. This means we spend ten times as much on corporate welfare and handouts to the top 1 percent than we do on welfare for working families struggling to make ends meet.

 

[reinoe]

According to this, corporate welfare is ten times that for working families. What do you think?

Yes, it makes the complaints about food stamp abuse look really petty.

 

[Henrin]

People keeping more of their money is not welfare. Try to be honest in your argument and then maybe we can talk.

 

[joG]

According to this, corporate welfare is ten times that for working families. What do you think?

I looked at the first item. It is not "corporate welfare" and anyone that says it is, has never seriously thought about what costs are and how markets work.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Here's how to tell if it's welfare: if there is a check made out by the USFG to an individual person or entity that isn't a repayment for too much taxes paid or for specific services/items, it's welfare.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Sounds about right.

Bring a flat tax, eliminate deductions. The hyper-rich will pay their fair share then I guess.

 

[OrphanSlug]

What do you think?

I think we need to have a two part discussion.

First and from the source, "Corporate Welfare" is mostly tax breaks and incentives. I have no problem with the suggestion that we need to greatly change our tax code including all of the imbalances and political "gifts," but a tax break is not necessarily corporate welfare. An infusion of capital would be.

The second discussion is on dealing with subsidies. That would be closer to welfare but in that instance is generally for an economic reason (even if politically motivated.) I can see the overwhelming majority of subsidies changed or outright removed, but again it is a little apples to oranges to compare a subsidy with a social safety net program.

There is no doubt that the shenanigans up on the hill have created way too much dependence, and there is no doubt that Republicans and Democrats alike have made many treasury promises just to obtain a vote from the usual suspects. But undoing all of this is going to be complicated, with economic implications all along the way.

It took time to get to this point, we need to be smart about what parts are undone.

 

[molten_dragon]

What do you think?

Virtually everyone votes themselves government goodies. The rich, the poor, conservative, liberal, everyone does it.

 

[winston53660]

According to this, corporate welfare is ten times that for working families. What do you think?

Corporations benefit from those too.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Virtually everyone votes themselves government goodies. The rich, the poor, conservative, liberal, everyone does it.

There you go. That's the whole story, isn't it?

 

[fmw]

Most of these 10 items aren't "corporate welfare." Oil depletion allowances for oil companies are and I think they are obsolete. They should be eliminated. It appears the people who put these lists together have a poor understanding of how things actually work. A few simple explanations.

1. All wages and salaries are excluded from company taxation just as are all company expenses. Corporate taxes are paid on net profits.

2. Corporate jets would be considered depreciable assets. They are no different than any other company asset. Maintenance, fuel, pilot salaries and everything else related to the airplanes are expenses. See 1 above. Executives are expensive enough that large corporations consider the time savings involved in providing private air travel is worth it. You can criticize that, if you like, but you can't call it corporate welfare.

3. As I said above, the oil depletion allowances are indeed corporate welfare and are obsolete in my view.

4. Drug company profits are earned. They aren't welfare. If you think medicare/medicaid should get better prices and they can't because of a corrupt law, talk to your legislators to see about changing the law. You can't blame the drug companies for seeking advantages. You can blame the government on this one. Finally, if you think the government should not be involved in taxpayer funded drug research you should talk to those same legislators. I don't think the government has any business funding private research. But this isn't corporate welfare.

5. The purpose of capital gains tax rates is to provide incentive for people to invest in business. It applies to everyone, not just corporations, so it isn't corporate welfare either. Tax rates are determined in Congress. That is the place to go to end capital gains rates if you disagree with it. I disagree with it just like the author, but I don't blame business for it.

6. Most of these tax reductions occurred because the state was competing with other states for the location of some asset like a factory which they wanted in their state to add jobs. The companies negotiated benefits for locating in the state. Reduced taxes aren't corporate welfare either. They are reduced taxes. One assumes the state would make up the tax reduction from taxing the employees of the factory over time. It's business, not corporate welfare.

7. I'll accept farm subsidies as welfare of sorts and I don't think the government should provide them. The reason it does, is because governments in other countries subsidize agriculture and the subsidies help keep American farms competitive. The issue is whether or not it is corporate welfare since it apples to family farms as well. It applies to all farms. Even I, who is not a farmer, have received subsidies to convert a corn field to a hay field. The funds were provided under a law that allows this type of subsidy as soil conservation. Something we shouldn't do? I agree with that but, again, it isn't corporate welfare.

8. I'm completely against this practice. I view these banks as too large to succeed. The purpose is to avoid a potential bankruptcy that would seriously hurt the FDIC. Perhaps the FDIC shouldn't exist either. The government should treat all people and all companies equally. It should never play favorite. Nevertheless, it isn't corporate welfare either. It is a loss of revenue in the same way a tax reduction is.

9. The portfolio is a loan portfolio. These are loans to companies, not payments to companies. They are repaid with interest. I agree that government should not be in the business of loaning money but there is no way to justify calling it corporate welfare. Loans like Solyndra fit the same situation. Government shouldn't be in the lending business. I'm happier without the EX-Im bank too as I am much of government. But it isn't corporate welfare.

10. This is ridiculous. The government contracts with companies to buy things that it needs. It is a purchase, not welfare.

So there you have it. 1 out of 10 is actually corporate welfare. Many of these these comments point out corruption in our bloated government and many of them should be curtailed or eliminated. I don't argue that. But this a nonsensical list put together by a partisan blog and has no relation to real life.

 

[DamnYankee]

Bring a flat tax, eliminate deductions. The hyper-rich will pay their fair share then I guess.

Now you're talkin'.

I like the idea of a flat tax or a federal sales tax, or what have you. That way everyone has skin in the game.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Most of these 10 items aren't "corporate welfare." Oil depletion allowances for oil companies are and I think they are obsolete. They should be eliminated. It appears the people who put these lists together have a poor understanding of how things actually work. A few simple explanations.

(redacted. post too long)

So there you have it. 1 out of 10 is actually corporate welfare. Many of these these comments point out corruption in our bloated government and many of them should be curtailed or eliminated. I don't argue that. But this a nonsensical list put together by a partisan blog and has no relation to real life.

I generally agree with most of the above. I knew when I posted this thread that the source was not exactly unbiased. That said:

Agricultural subsidies are often based not on needs, but on the strength of the lobbyists involved. The ethanol subsidy for corn, for example, benefits who else but the growers of corn? As for those "family farmers", that brings up images of a rural America that really no longer exists. Food is produced on factory farms for the most part.

Pharmaceutical companies: Why should they be able to re label a generic drug, then sell it as if they had invested millions of dollars developing it? These companies are selling medicines that often cost hundreds of dollars a month. If it is a cutting edge drug that cost a lot to develop, then it may be worth that. Often, it is not, and the money goes not into R and D, but into those annoying TV ads "shouldn't you ask your doctor"? Who else gets to have a monopoly on any product and a law that the government (who pays at least a portion of the bill) can't negotiate the price? What a deal for them, not so much for the rest of us.

The purpose of the FDIC is to prevent a run on the banks such as happened at the beginning of the great depression. Let's not do away with that one, but then, if a big bank screws up, let's let market forces take care of them.

 

[Thrilla]

According to this, corporate welfare is ten times that for working families. What do you think?

I think presenting tax deductions as "welfare" is inaccurate....

 

[fmw]

I generally agree with most of the above. I knew when I posted this thread that the source was not exactly unbiased. That said:

Agricultural subsidies are often based not on needs, but on the strength of the lobbyists involved. The ethanol subsidy for corn, for example, benefits who else but the growers of corn? As for those "family farmers", that brings up images of a rural America that really no longer exists. Food is produced on factory farms for the most part.

I didn't suggest for a moment that these things didn't evolve from corruption. They did. I wasn't defending farm subsidies, I was explaining why the government defends them. If you come visit here you will be surrounded by family farms for miles and miles. I actually live on a family farm that doesn't farm anything any longer. Nevertheless, the subsidies apply to all farms and aren't corporate welfare. We should get rid of farm subsidies as I said.

Pharmaceutical companies: Why should they be able to re label a generic drug, then sell it as if they had invested millions of dollars developing it? These companies are selling medicines that often cost hundreds of dollars a month. If it is a cutting edge drug that cost a lot to develop, then it may be worth that. Often, it is not, and the money goes not into R and D, but into those annoying TV ads "shouldn't you ask your doctor"? Who else gets to have a monopoly on any product and a law that the government (who pays at least a portion of the bill) can't negotiate the price? What a deal for them, not so much for the rest of us.

I would support a law banning the advertisement of drugs to consumers. They should be marketed to doctors who prescribe them. But it isn't corporate welfare.

The purpose of the FDIC is to prevent a run on the banks such as happened at the beginning of the great depression. Let's not do away with that one, but then, if a big bank screws up, let's let market forces take care of them.

The banks could do what the insurance companies do. That is to create a national pool. Rather than pay fees to the FDIC, they could pay into the pool to use when a bank bites the dust. The whole thing could be and should be handled in the private sector.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I didn't suggest for a moment that these things didn't evolve from corruption. They did. I wasn't defending farm subsidies, I was explaining why the government defends them. If you come visit here you will be surrounded by family farms for miles and miles. I actually live on a family farm that doesn't farm anything any longer. Nevertheless, the subsidies apply to all farms and aren't corporate welfare. We should get rid of farm subsidies as I said.



I would support a law banning the advertisement of drugs to consumers. They should be marketed to doctors who prescribe them. But it isn't corporate welfare.



The banks could do what the insurance companies do. That is to create a national pool. Rather than pay fees to the FDIC, they could pay into the pool to use when a bank bites the dust. The whole thing could be and should be handled in the private sector.

Perhaps tax advantages and other perks to the wealthy would be more descriptive than "corporate welfare."

 

[fmw]

Perhaps tax advantages and other perks to the wealthy would be more descriptive than "corporate welfare."

Or perhaps government corruption would be even more descriptive. The left wants to blame business for crony capitalism. They need to blame the government. Sure businesses work to get any competitive advantage they can get from government. It is natural and normal in business. It is the job of government not to allow it. And there certainly is too much money in politics.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Or perhaps government corruption would be even more descriptive. The left wants to blame business for crony capitalism. They need to blame the government. Sure businesses work to get any competitive advantage they can get from government. It is natural and normal in business. It is the job of government not to allow it. And there certainly is too much money in politics.

Way too much money in politics. Unfortunately, the same people who could do something about it are the ones who benefit from it.

 

[Thrilla]

Way too much money in politics. Unfortunately, the same people who could do something about it are the ones who benefit from it.

what is the proper amount of money in politics?

 

[Dittohead not!]

what is the proper amount of money in politics?

I'd vote for zero, but that's just me.

Let the people we send to represent us live on the salary we pay them and/or whatever they made before selflessly committing time to a limited term of public service.

in my ideal world, that's how it would be.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Oh look, a distraction (from Citizens United and Fortune 500's nation-hopping and gaming the global economy)!

 

[Thrilla]

I'd vote for zero, but that's just me.

Let the people we send to represent us live on the salary we pay them and/or whatever they made before selflessly committing time to a limited term of public service.

in my ideal world, that's how it would be.

yeah, not gonna happen.... campaigns cost lots and lots of money... especially presidential campaigns that have to reach a national audience.

not that i disagree, it's just that's just not indicative of any reality we live in.
in fact, i would probably take it much further.. I'd require federal official to divest from any ventures in which they would find themselves legislating over... which is pretty much everything... citing potential and actual conflicts of interest as justification.
far too many legislators miraculously become rich at, coincidentally i'm sure, the most opportune times, simply because they have insider knowledge and the ability to manipulate so very much in whatever favor they prefer.

as for campaigns, i would never limit any legal person ( which included corporations, unions, associations, etc) from contributing any amount they would like to whatever politician they prefer... donate as much as you like, millions, billions , or trillions.
I'd simply limit valid candidates in their expenditures,set caps on specific races... and any money left over in the campaign coffers would go directly into the general fund, never to be seen again by the donor, or the politician.

that's my utopia.... and i have a feeling we will both be sorely disappointed when absolutely none of it becomes reality. :lol:

 

[Militant_Vegan_]

yeah, not gonna happen.... campaigns cost lots and lots of money... especially presidential campaigns that have to reach a national audience.

not that i disagree, it's just that's just not indicative of any reality we live in.
in fact, i would probably take it much further.. I'd require federal official to divest from any ventures in which they would find themselves legislating over... which is pretty much everything... citing potential and actual conflicts of interest as justification.
far too many legislators miraculously become rich at, coincidentally i'm sure, the most opportune times, simply because they have insider knowledge and the ability to manipulate so very much in whatever favor they prefer.

as for campaigns, i would never limit any legal person ( which included corporations, unions, associations, etc) from contributing any amount they would like to whatever politician they prefer... donate as much as you like, millions, billions , or trillions.
I'd simply limit valid candidates in their expenditures,set caps on specific races... and any money left over in the campaign coffers would go directly into the general fund, never to be seen again by the donor, or the politician.

that's my utopia.... and i have a feeling we will both be sorely disappointed when absolutely none of it becomes reality. :lol:

any leftover money. Did you just fall off the turnip truck?

 

[Thrilla]

any leftover money. Did you just fall off the turnip truck?

nope, the turnip truck was full of vegans licking the manure off the turnips, there's wasn't any room for me.

do you have argument to make, or is you being an asshole the only thing in question here?

 

[fmw]

Way too much money in politics. Unfortunately, the same people who could do something about it are the ones who benefit from it.

No doubt. That is why we need to start voting these people out of office.